Yusef Komunyakaa (1947-present), poet. Diem Cai Dau (Vietnamese
for “crazy in the head), a collection of poems on his Vietnamese war
experience, was published in 1988.
Facing It (1947)
Yusef Komunyakaa
My black face fades,
hiding inside the black granite.
I said I wouldn’t,
dammit: No tears.
I’m stone. I’m flesh.
My clouded reflection eyes me
like a bird of prey, the profile of night
slanted against morning. I turn
this way--the stone lets me go.
I turn that way--I’m inside
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
again, depending on the light
to make a difference.
I go down the 58,022 names,
half-expecting to find
my own in letters like smoke.
I touch the name Andrew Johnson;
I see the booby trap’s white flash.
Names shimmer on a woman’s blouse
but when she walks away
the names stay on the wall.
Brushstrokes flash, a red bird’s
wings cutting across my stare.
The sky. A plane in the sky.
A white vet’s image floats
closer to me, then his pale eyes
look through mine. I’m a window.
He’s lost his right arm
inside the stone. In the black mirror
a woman’s trying to erase names:
No, she’s brushing a boy’s hair.
Prof. Herbert’s lectures as modeling the research process
Prof. Herbert gives an indication of the level of detail that is required in analyzing
primary sources: who, what, where, and when, but most importantly why and how:
How did the architectural reconstruction of Coventry Cathedral after neardemolition reflect a rebirth and manifest a reconciliation of various human
divisions (racial, economic, national, etc.)? How might we read a culture of
forgiveness and hope in the architectural structure of the cathedral?
Why is there an internal tension between Wilfred Owen’s poetry and motifs of
religious rejuvenation in Britten’s War Requiem? How might this tension reflect
socio-historical contradictions in post-war English culture?
How did Maya Lin’s design for the Vietnam Veteran’s memorial attempt to
reconcile different groups who were opposed to each other duing the war, and
was it successful? What were the unforeseen consequences of such a
reconciliation, and how do those consequences mirror the tensions inherent in
any public memorial project?
Your own humanistic research project should ask similar kinds of why and how
questions about an artifact’s embeddedness in a historical/cultural context and
should also take up the same kind of detailed interpretive analysis of the primary
source.
Possible Organizational Structure of the Research Paper
!  Introduction: introduces topic, humanistic questions, and thesis (answers to
those questions)
!  Historical background/context: explains where the story of this artifact begins
and why
!  Close reading of the artifact
!  Scholarly context / literature review: surveys scholarship that touches upon
your research questions, reveals the conversation these sources have with
one another, and offers various perspectives on your research questions
!  Engagement with scholarly landscape: reveals how your thesis engages with
the scholarly conversation on this topic (e.g., in revealing a gap, in
presenting an alternative perspective, in bringing together disparate voices
or disciplines, etc.)
!  Conclusion that reinforces the significance of the artifact / project as a whole
What should the thesis of your research paper accomplish?
"  Your thesis should convey how and why your war artifact creates
meaning in a cultural context by answering humanistic research
questions.
"  Imagine the humanities research paper thesis as one voice in a polite
and informed debate among scholars who share a relatively in-depth
knowledge of primary sources similar to yours, and who have read the
major relevant secondary sources in a clearly identified field (or fields)
of the humanities.
"  In most cases, scholarly articles that form a written discussion or debate
do not center on yes-or-no questions, or right-or-wrong answers, but
rather allow scholars to interact based on diverging opinions, in a
productive setting from which all participants emerge enlightened and
enriched by the contributions and ideas of other scholars.
"  Your thesis or central claim will likely exceed a single sentence or even
a paragraph – often the thesis will occupy a full page of a research
paper such as this one.
What should the introduction of your research paper accomplish?
"  Gives a statement of what fields/disciplines your research engages with
"  Gives clear statement of what your research is contributing to the
existing scholarship on your topic
"  Explains of how your research project is different from the existing
articles and books on similar topics
"  Gives a clear statement of the thesis/central claim
Your introduction may:
"  Justify studying a neglected feature of your primary source
"  Reflect on how your primary source brings together multiple disciplinary
approaches in the humanities, or bridges disparate cultural groups/
subcultures
What should the analysis of your primary source/artifact accomplish?
"  Answer the who, what, where, when, why, and how of your artifact
(think about the level of detail of the formal description you gave in your
image analysis paper in the winter quarter)
"  Provide a vivid description of the physical features of your artifact and
the issues related to these features
OR
"  Provide detailed interpretation of the formal/technical dimensions
(literary, rhetorical, visual, or filmic) of your artifact (if its genre demands
such an approach)
Your analysis of the artifact may include:
"  Comparisons with other primary sources that are similar to your primary
source. For example, you could mention heavily studied or famous
examples of similar primary sources.
"  A defense of your project that shows how your primary source has
special properties that deserve to be studied.
"  A discussion of why this artifact is important if this primary source has
not been studied from a humanities or humanistic perspective.
How should you engage with each scholarly secondary source (minimum 6
scholarly monographs or peer-reviewed articles)?
"  Use signal verbs to introduce both direct quotations and the general ideas of
each scholar (see handout).
"  Refer to each scholar first by his or her full name (as listed on their publication)
and in all subsequent references by his or her last name and cite quotations and
paraphrased material in proper MLA formatting (Author page number).
"  You must negotiate between the general (briefly conveying general topic of a
scholarly secondary source) and the specific (the aspect of the source that
relates directly to your interpretation/analysis). You should give some sense of
the scholar’s field of inquiry, but your focus should be on the way that his or her
work intersects with your research questions.
"  Obviously, some secondary sources will require sustained engagement (e.g.,
sources that directly treat the same sorts of research questions as your own),
meaning that you may spend a paragraph or two discussing how the scholar
builds her argument, her disciplinary approach, what kinds of evidence she uses,
etc. Other sources, especially those you only use for general context or nondebatable information, will only be cursorily referenced. The point is to show that
you can critically read and analyze secondary sources and then engage with
those texts in building your own argument.
How should you engage with the scholarly conversation that you have
discovered between secondary sources?
"  Use precise transitional phrases to designate relationships between ideas
"  Give your reader a sense of the scholarly landscape. Are there particular scholars
that seem to “loom large” in this conversation? Do scholars tend to take the same
disciplinary approaches? Were most scholars writing about this topic at a particular
time?
"  Reflect on the ideology, politics, ethics, or controversies that relate to your primary
source or the general topic to which it corresponds.
"  Discuss and define important concepts connected to your research:
"  Use adjectives to refine abstract nouns (not simply "feminism" but "postmodern
feminism,” “radical feminism,” or “Civil Rights era feminism”)
"  Use whole phrases if you cannot think of single adjectives (not simply
"freedom" but "intellectual freedom for manual laborers in the suburbs”)
"  One way to write the literature review is to argue that a humanities-oriented
approach will illuminate an important issue that an alternative approach may have
overlooked. Alternatively, you may reflect on how a multi-disciplinary approach
reveals something that a single disciplinary approach may not.
How should you discuss the cultures or subcultures that interact by way
of your primary source?
"  Discuss groups of people who made, use, view, or even those who interpret
(scholars) your primary source.
"  Think about how you define culture. Nationality (e.g., Americans in general)
or ethnicity (e.g., Jews in general) may not be sufficient in this case. You
may have to define culture it in terms of expressed beliefs.
"  Repeated action is an expression of belief. Those who use a park for
similar purposes form a culture; those who use it for play form a
subculture and those who use it for studying form a subculture. Those
who attend a church form a culture; those who believe form a subculture
and those who are struggling with belief form a subculture. Those who
attend a concert or go to museums can form a culture, etc.
"  You have to state precisely which shared beliefs and practices define the
cultures you are examining in your research.
How should you handle theses that contradict your own claim
(antitheses)?
"  It is a good idea to think about opposition to your argument. Entertain
the possibility of paradoxes, ambiguities, alternate interpretations, and,
especially, an antithesis or opposition to your thesis.
"  The antithesis could originate in the humanities or the social sciences.
An antithesis can disagree about which aspect of the primary source is
most important; the meaning of the primary source; the way the primary
source promotes or discourages cultural interaction; or which field best
explores the main features of the primary source.
"  Reflecting on antitheses can be the place where you state what your
essay has achieved.
"  One way to write the conclusion is to reflect on what the field of the
humanities offers to the understanding of your primary source.
Remember, in addition to the feedback you have received/will receive from me
and your peers, there are two additional resources on campus as you revise
your research paper:
1)  Humanities Core Peer Tutors have in-person appointments available this
and next week – you can schedule online at
http://sites.uci.edu/humanitiescorepeertutors/
2)  The Center for Excellence in Writing and Communication has in-person
appointments as well as walk-in and online consultation available. More
details at http://www.writingcenter.uci.edu
Key Deadlines/Dates for Section 27601
Thursday, May 26th – Last day of individual appointments. Please upload
“Research Rough Draft” to EEE Dropbox by midnight if we haven’t met if you
want feedback on this assignment.
Monday, May 30th – No lecture or section meeting for Memorial Day
Tuesday May 31st – Drop-in office hours from 9-12 a.m.
Wednesday, June 1st – Final lecture and section meeting, discussion of Marita
Suruken’s “The Wall and the Screen Memory,” and final exam review. Hand in
paper copies of peer review.
Friday, June 3rd at 11:59 p.m. – Final draft of Research paper must be
submitted to both EEE Dropbox and turnitin.com. Prewriting stages of the
research assignment must be completed on your blog and ready for a holistic
grade. Submit electronic copies of peer review.
Monday, June 6th – Optional final exam review session from 10-11 a.m. in
HumCore conference room
FINAL EXAM from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. in HH 232
Key Deadlines/Dates for Section 27602
Thursday, May 26th – Last day of individual appointments. Please upload
“Research Rough Draft” to EEE Dropbox by midnight if we haven’t met if you
want feedback on this assignment.
Monday, May 30th – No lecture or section meeting for Memorial Day
Tuesday May 31st – Drop-in office hours from 9-12 a.m.
Wednesday, June 1st – Final lecture and section meeting, discussion of Marita
Suruken’s “The Wall and the Screen Memory,” and final exam review. Hand in
paper copies of peer review.
Friday, June 3rd at 11:59 p.m. – Final draft of Research paper must be
submitted to both EEE Dropbox and turnitin.com. Prewriting stages of the
research assignment must be completed on your blog and ready for a holistic
grade. Submit electronic copies of peer review.
Monday, June 6th – Optional final exam review session from 10-11 a.m. in
HumCore conference room
FINAL EXAM from 1:30 – 3:30 p.m. in HH 232